(This is meant as a factual question, I realise it touches on many debatable subjects; just try, ok?)
Watching the (vice-) presidential debate I was irritated by the amount of interruptions. I found many instances downright rude. Yet the moderators didn’t do much to prevent it.
Why not give a warning; “we gave you a mike, we can also take it away” and follow through on the threat if they won’t shut up (or something along that spirit)?
I think Sen Kaine said that after the initial 2 minute answers (one by each candidate) were over, additional follow ups were open for back-and-forth debate. I can’t find the actual rules online anywhere, so I can’t confirm this. I think with few exceptions, they pretty much stayed silent during the initial 2 minute responses after each new question, but then took off during additional comments.
And, as satisfying as it may be, you can’t talk to dignitaries as if they were kindergarteners. It would be professional suicide for you and your network. Yes, the hosts of the “shouting split-screen” talk shows sometimes cut off microphones, but you don’t do that at a legitimate news event.
That wasn’t included in the rules that were set up for these debates. Changing the rules halfway through would likely get complaints fro, both campaigns. (And give a ready reason for any candidate looking for an excuse to skip future debates.)
Removing interruptions would make the debates much less interactive – you might as well just have each candidate send in 2-minute prepared videos of answers to the questions. Would make them much less interesting and thus lose the audience.
These ‘shows’ are supposed to be confrontational shouting matches. Watch Prime Minister’s Question time and you will see that they do it all the time.
If you want reasoned debate, go to the Oxford Union, or probably any other University Debating Society. They can get pretty way out, but speakers and questions are strictly controlled
Not true at all. PMQ’s has moderation in the form of the speaker of the house and interruptions are handled formally.
“Order; Order.” Yes I know, but there is still a good deal of braying laughter, booing and shouting - just like a bunch of schoolkids.
Because the debate isn’t about the moderators. Really. They’re supposed to ask questions and then get out of the way, so that the viewers can judge for themselves.
True, but that is normally more of a background rumble and the speaker will intervene to make absolutely sure that the member in question gets to finish their point.
Perhaps that is the way the rules are written but I don’t think that allowing candidates free reign helps the viewers at all. A good moderator is vital to ensuring questions are answered, highlighting evasion and keeping good order. You want to hear what each has to say on topic rather than wasting time and energy on squabbling.
I’m saying that’s the way reality is. No television audience would stand for a moderator cutting down a debater. If it somehow happened once it would never happen again. Even enforcing the time limits puts the moderator into an unrecoverable position.
Bolding mine.
You, Novelty Bobble, want to hear that. Many audience members want to see who’s more aggressive and manly and take-charge-y.
If you (any you) want to know the candidates’ formal policy positions go read their websites. If policy positions exist, they’ll be there.
If you (any you) want a sense of the person’s ability to think on their feet and to deal with hostile opposition to their ability to get their point across, watch the jousting. You’ll also get a chance to see who’s forceful and who’s a jerk. Those aren’t synonyms.
My objection is the use of the debates to push blatant falsehoods. I’d much rather see real-time fact checking than moderating the interruptions.
It’s not just the entertainment value. It’s also more realistic. If a candidate gets elected president, they’re not going to have a moderator to make things fair for them. They have to go out and push their message in the face of opposition.
If that truly is what the USA voters want to see then you deserve what you get.
Are under the impression that international relations are conducted like the televised presidential debates?
The key point is these things called “debates” are not debates. They’re something else altogether. Saying they suck as formal debates is like saying McDonalds sucks as haute cuisine. True, but an uninteresting observation.
It would be interesting to have a different sort of a panel discussion where the moderators set out some provable real-world facts about some current policy challenge. And then let each contender speak uninterrupted for, say, 5 minutes, on how they would address the situation. With a big buzzer sounding whenever they strayed from actually talking about the situation or began introducing false “facts” to muddy the waters.
It wouldn’t be entertaining, but it would be informative.
Ultimately though, we’re not electing the Head Policy Wonk. The critical skill a President brings is evaluating policy created by true experts and then selling it to the US public, the Congress (both parties), the state governments, and the world.
The presidency is as much a sales job as it is a command job. And it’s far more of both of those than it is a policy wonkery job.
My personal prejudice is that it’s hard to make good decisions about something when you don’t have a deep grasp of the topic’s fundamentals.
Various people smarter than me have argued that leading a good bureaucracy involves accepting that the staffs’ detailed years-in-the-making understanding of a situation results in better proposals, and therefore better decisions, than your own necessarily limited knowledge and intuition spread across dozens of policy areas as it must be.
The political debates are television circus. The issues may be real, but the debates themselves are mere theater. They lost merit when the non-partisan League of Women Voters quit sponsoring them in 1988. The debates are now controlled and managed by the two major political parties.
International relations (and domestic politics) often involve a degree of adversarial confrontation. So being able to handle adversarial confrontation is a skill an effective President needs.